What RCTs Do Not Show

R. Anjum, S. Mumford
{"title":"What RCTs Do Not Show","authors":"R. Anjum, S. Mumford","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198733669.003.0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter we discuss how it is an uncontroversial norm of science that decisions should be based on evidence. There can be debate, however, on what counts as evidence and how we get from evidence to decision. The method of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is now prominent in medical and social science. However, the method also has a number of weaknesses that are inherent to the design. There are some things that RCTs cannot test, while other interventions are well suited for the method. Among other consequences, it can be shown that the method structurally favours certain causal interventions over others.","PeriodicalId":308769,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Scholarship Online","volume":"36 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Scholarship Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198733669.003.0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this chapter we discuss how it is an uncontroversial norm of science that decisions should be based on evidence. There can be debate, however, on what counts as evidence and how we get from evidence to decision. The method of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is now prominent in medical and social science. However, the method also has a number of weaknesses that are inherent to the design. There are some things that RCTs cannot test, while other interventions are well suited for the method. Among other consequences, it can be shown that the method structurally favours certain causal interventions over others.
随机对照试验没有显示什么
在本章中,我们将讨论决策应该基于证据这一毫无争议的科学规范。然而,对于什么是证据,以及我们如何从证据中得出结论,可能存在争议。随机对照试验(rct)的方法现在在医学和社会科学中很突出。然而,这种方法也有一些设计固有的弱点。有些事情是随机对照试验无法测试的,而其他干预措施则非常适合这种方法。在其他后果中,可以表明该方法在结构上倾向于某些因果干预而不是其他干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信